Rujukan Talmud untuk Ulangan 15:21: Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah & Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle¹A discussion of the notion “comprehensive principle” is in Šabbat7:1 (Babli Šabbat 68a). for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or material for dye and cannot be preserved in the ground²Roots that stay edible in the ground until after the Sabbatical are not subject to removal since they are always available to wild animals. is subject to the Sabbatical and its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical³If Sabbatical produce is sold, its proceeds become Sabbatical and must be used to buy other produce that has to be eaten in the Land under the rules of the Sabbatical.; it is subject to removal and its proceeds are subject to removal⁴If nothing of the kind for which the money was obtained is left on the fields for wild animals, the money must be spent for food that has to be distributed to the poor. In the unlikely case that there are no poor, the money has to be thrown into the Dead Sea..
What are these? This is the leaf of wild arum¹¹Cf. Kilaim 2:5, Note 69., mint¹²Definition of Maimonides and Arukh (אלנענע). All sources except the Leyden ms. read הדנדנה., endives¹³Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Note 41., leeks¹⁴Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Note 42., purslain¹⁵Definition of Maimonides and Arukh, Arabic דגלה. and milk bud¹⁶. Definition of Maimonides in the majority of mss.: “parsley”. Some Maimonides mss.: “Mahaleb.” Arukh: White flowers, some say a grass producing wolf’s milk. The Gaonic commentary to Uqeẓin: Arabic ח̇דשף “artichoke; anything rough and hard”. Since artichokes for human food are קינרס, the thistles referred to here are animal feed.. Animal feed, thistles and thorns. Dyestuffs, the wild growth of isatis and safflower¹⁷Maimonides notes that “some commentators explain קוצה as safflower;” he expresses no opinion. Arukh defines as “madder”, but madder appears in Mishnah 4 as פואה under a different legal category.. These are subject to the Sabbatical and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; both they and their proceeds are subject to removal.
They established another principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is⁵⁵This is the reading of the Leyden ms., many of the best Mishnah mss., and R. Simson but not of Maimonides, the Mishnah mss. in the Maimonides tradition, and the Rome ms. These all read: Everything that is not …; cf. The Mishnah with variant readings, vol. Zeraïm II (Jerusalem 1975) p. 57, Note 14. food for humans or animals or dyestuff and is preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical; its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is not subject to removal⁵⁶It cannot be subject to removal since there always remains something in the ground. nor are its proceeds subject to removal.
What are these? These are the root of wild arum, the root of mint¹²Definition of Maimonides and Arukh (אלנענע). All sources except the Leyden ms. read הדנדנה., ceterach⁵⁷In all manuscript sources except the Leyden ms., the name is עקרבלין or עקרבנין. This corresponds to Arabic עֻקרֻבַּאן., ḥalbiẓin⁵⁴These are mentioned in Mishnah 4. Maimonides declares the word to be unexplained. Arukh explains: “Egg shaped seeds developing like ferula(Italian, meaning ‘gigantic fennel’). Some people say, eggs of milk buds and that is a white flower.” In Syriac, the word means “Bethlehem star” (a flower). Arukh’s note, “some people say”, indicates that he had two Yerushalmi versions: the one before us from the Leyden ms./Venice print, and the reading of the Rome ms. in Halakhah 4: חלבנין, Arabic חֻלבּוּן “mercury” (Mercurialis, a plant); in Löw’s opinion Euphorbia tinctoria, a close relative of mercury., and wild nard⁵⁸Latin baccar,baccaris, Greek βάκχαρις, an aromatic root also called nardum rusticum (Pliny), used against evil spells. Arukh: Arabic בנגר “beet”. Maimonides: Meaning unclear.. Kinds of dyestuffs: madder and campeachy-wood⁵⁹Reseda luteola, definition of Maimonides, Arabic בקם. Definition of Arukh: Arabic שגרה̇ מרים “Miriam’s tree”, a tree, known to Arabic writers, used for dye.. These and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; these and their proceeds are not subject to removal.
Rebbi Meïr says, their⁶⁰The plants mentioned in the preceding Mishnah. proceeds have to be removed before New Year’s Day. They said to him, they do not have to be removed, a fortiori their proceeds.
Pomegranate skins⁶⁸Tanning material and dyestuff. and its peduncles, nut shells⁶⁸Tanning material and dyestuff., and pits are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. The dyer dyes for himself; he should not dye for payment⁶⁹He may work for wages if he has vegetable dyes from the preceding year. because one does not treat the produce of the Sabbatical as merchandise, nor firstlings or heaves, carcasses, torn animals, abominations⁷⁰E. g., seafood and reptiles., and crawling things⁷¹Invertebrates.. One may not buy vegetables to sell them on the market but he may collect and his son sells for him. If he bought for himself and has leftovers, it is permitted to sell them.
If somebody bought a first-born animal⁸⁵A first-born calf or lamb becomes the property of the Cohen. If the first-born develops a defect it may be eaten by everybody (Deut. 15:21); it may be sold by the Cohen to a layman. But since the first-born is a sacrifice from birth, it must be treated with respect and cannot become an object of trade. However, an occasional private sale is permitted under special circumstances. for his son’s wedding or for a holiday and now does not need it, he may sell it. Catchers of wild animals, birds, or fish who accidentally caught impure species may sell them. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who incidentally has such an opportunity⁸⁶He is not a professional bird catcher or fisherman. An impure animal or fish crosses his way and he has the opportunity to grab it with the intent to sell it to Gentiles. For professionals it is clear that they may take impure species only if they accidentally catch them in their nets. may take and sell them on condition that this not be his profession, but the Sages prohibit it.

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning⁵¹And the same witness saw the suspect man going to the same place. and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: ⁵²Tosephta Giṭṭin 5:4; quoted also in Halakhah Giṭṭin 7:4.“If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus⁵³A Tanna whose time cannot be determined with accuracy. He seems to belong to the later Tannaïm. asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.⁵⁴In the Tosephta: “That is only one witness per incident.” It implies that also in the case of the straying wife there are no two witnesses for any incident.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing⁵⁵In the interpretation of S. Eisenstein, the statement should be read as: “even though heis the same man and she is the same woman morning and evening, his declaration is worthless.” It seems that this author is correct in reading this interpretation into R. Josef Caro’s lengthy discussion of this paragraph in Bet Joseph, Ṭur Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 30(7). The upshoot of the latter’s discussion is that since the declaration of jealousy in every case was made in front of only one witness, nobody is expected to take it seriously.. Or is it to be treated like the following: ⁵⁶From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is found also in the parallels Ketubot 2:4, Sanhedrin 3:10.“One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.⁵⁷Tosephta Sanhedrin 5:5, Babli Sanhedrin 30a; Baba Batra 32a, 165a; Ketubot 26b, Giṭṭin 33b; Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:4; Sanhedrin 3:10, 4:1. The Babli seems to imply that practice follows R. Joshua ben Qorḥa and the Yerushalmi text also has to be interpreted in the same way. For R. Joshua ben Qorḥa the two single witnesses together can testify not to a single misdeed but to a pattern of misbehavior.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: ⁵⁸In the Babli, Sanhedrin 30b, essentially the same ruling. The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings⁵⁹Accoding to Rashi, Sanhedrin 30b, this refers to a firstling born in the herd of a Jew. The firstling must be given to a Cohen who, in the absence of a Temple, may slaughter and eat the firstling only after it has developed a permanent defect which disables it from ever being a sacrifice (Deut. 15:21–23). Since the Cohen has a monetary interest in seeing the firstling declared defective, the rabbis decreed that (a) causing a defect in a firstling is sinful and (b) the Cohen is disqualified from testifying that the defect was not induced by humans. The Cohen must find two other witnesses but they do not have to testify on the same thing. and witnesses of squatters’ rights⁶⁰In a society in which title to real estate is not necessarily established by documents, title to a property can be proven in court by testimony of undisturbed possession during three years supported by a claim of lawful acquisition (as purchase, gift, or inheritance).. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs⁶¹To testify that the person in question is an adult qualified to transact business. A person is an adult who (a) has reached the age of consent, 12 and 1 day for a female and 13 and 1 day for a male, and (b) shows signs of puberty in the form of two pubic hairs. While the court may have ways of verifying age, it needs testimony about the pubic hair. Growth of hair on any other part of the body is irrelevant. Therefore, in the following, the expression “hair on the back” or “hair on the belly” cannot mean that but must be read as “hair on the extreme right or left of the pelvic area” and “hair at the upper border of the pelvic area [Maimonides, Hilkhot Edut 4:7, Meïri Sanhedrin (ed. A. Sofer, Jerusalem 1971) p. 131].. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back⁶²This is valid testimony even if it is not simultaneous.. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back⁶³Since one pubic hair does not make the person an adult, there is no witness who testifies to the person being an adult.. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly⁶⁴The first witness testifies that the person is an adult. The second witness cannot testify that the person is an adult. In a criminal case, his testimony would be inadmissible. In the case before us, he only testifies that the person has more pubic hair than indicated in the first testimony; the question is whether the second witness, following R. Joshua ben Qorḥa, may be admitted to confirm the first testimony. It is obvious that for the rabbis opposing R. Joshua ben Qorḥa there is no testimony at all.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign⁶⁵The argument is accepted in both Talmudim. It says (Deut. 19:15): “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses the matter should be established.” It follows that a witness for half the matter has no standing in court.. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off⁶⁶He testifies that all he saw was one hair, showing that the two hairs seen by the previous two witnesses were not permanent hair.. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid⁶⁷Since Rebbi Abba had said earlier that the Sages agree with R. Joshua ben Qorḥa that partial testimony is accepted for signs of puberty, he must hold here that everybody agrees that two partial testimonies can be combined if each part is confirmed by two witnesses.. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him⁶⁸He disagrees with R. Abba and holds that the Sages did not accept R. Joshua ben Qorḥa’s opinion in this case. In the Babli (Sanhedrin 30b), R. Abba holds that the Sages accepted R. Joshua ben Qorḥa’s opinion only for questions of real estate.. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed⁶⁹It is claimed that the document is a forgery. In that case, the signatures of the witnesses on the document must be verified by two witnesses (or by comparison with another document signed by the same witness and which had been certified as genuine by some court of law.), if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything⁷⁰That argument seems to be incongruous here. It refers to the reading of the parallels in Ketubot and Sanhedrin: “One [witness] said, I saw one hair on his back and another said, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony].” However, the problem with this reading is that this kind of testimony has already been rejected (Note 63). The argument of R. Mana II (a student of R. Yudan) must refer to the text given here.? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything⁷¹While every witness testifies that the person in possession today was undisturbed in his possession for three years, this is not the testimony required by the court. (This case cannot be compared with that of informal testimony referred to in Mishnah Yebamot 15:5, where concurrent inference from diverging statements is accepted.)? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

If a butcher who is a Cohen gets hold of a first-born⁴⁹A first-born calf, lamb, or kid goat is a sacrifice by its birth and must be given to a Cohen. If it develops a defect that invalidates it as a sacrifice, it is the Cohen’s profane property (Deut. 15:21–22). However, it may not be treated with disrespect. The details are given in Tractate Bekhorot., may he cut it up into roasts and sell it on the market? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say it is permitted, analogous to “anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market⁵⁰If the first-born is slaughtered for home use, in the absence of refrigeration it is either cut into large pieces for festive meals or into smaller pieces to be smoked or pickled; neither of them is the kind of cut one does for the market.”. Rebbi Mana said, that statement itself implies that it is forbidden, that he should not treat its body as merchandise.